1 2026:CGHC:19958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3888 of 2026 Kamlesh Sahu S/o Bal Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years (Wrongly Mention 32 Years In The Impugned Order), R/o Kuradi, P.S. Arjunda, District - Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, P.S. Arjunda, District - Balod (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 145/2025, registered at Police Station : Arjunda, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109 of the BNS. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, the complainant, Kamal Singh Sahu, lodged an FIR before P.S. Arjunda District- Balod wherein he stated KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 that on 23.10.2025 at about 5:30 P.M., due to prior enmity, the applicant and Khilawan Sahu were arguing and abusing each other. The applicant was holding a sickle in his hand and threatened Khilawan Sahu. Thereafter, the complainant- Kamal Singh intervened to pacify the dispute. At that time, the applicant assaulted, Khilawan Sahu with the sickle and when the complainant attempted to rescue him, the applicant also assaulted the complainant and another person, namely Suresh Sahu, with the sickle. Upon seeing the villagers approaching, the applicant fled to his house. Based upon such, FIR has been registered against the applicant and thereafter he was arrested and after completion of investigation, police filed the final report under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 109 of the BNS before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of prior rivalry. It is further contended that during the alleged incident, the applicant himself sustained injuries, namely an incised wound on the vertex of his head measuring 2 × 2 cm and another incised wound on his ring finger measuring 4 × 1 cm, which is duly reflected in the MLC filed as Annexure A/3. It is also submitted that although the applicant’s father approached P.S. Arjunda to lodge an FIR against the complainant Kamal Singh Sahu and others, the police refused to register the same and instead, only a non-cognizable offence under Section 174 of the BNSS was registered, allegedly due to the influence of the complainant party (Annexure A/4). Learned counsel further submits that the injuries sustained by the complainant party occurred when they were assaulting the applicant and the 3 applicant acted in exercise of his right of private defence, which is supported by the medical documents (Annexure A/5) as well as the admission made by complainant Kamal Singh (PW-1) in paragraph 18 of his cross-examination (Annexure A/6). It is argued that the offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 109 of the BNS are not made out against the applicant. It is also pointed out that there exists previous enmity between the parties, as earlier an FIR was lodged against the applicant by Uttara Bai, wife of injured Khilawan Sahu, in which the applicant was acquitted and thereafter the complainant party has falsely implicated him in the present case. Additionally, it is submitted that the complainant side had earlier harassed the applicant under allegations related to the Tonhi Pratadna Act, and the applicant had also lodged a case against them, which further indicates false implication due to longstanding dispute. 4. Learned counsel further contends that the prosecution has suppressed material facts and failed to explain the injuries sustained by the applicant, thereby rendering the prosecution case doubtful in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Singh & Others vs. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394. It is also submitted that the applicant has previously been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 359/2021 by the Court of JMFC, Gundardehi (Annexure A/7). Lastly, it is contended that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged and is being unnecessarily harassed and as per settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, pre-trial detention should be avoided and the applicant is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. He further submits that so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant had total 10 criminal 4 antecedents and all are disposed of as the same has been explained in the bail application of para No.4(A) and further in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, this Court may kindly be pleased to consider it and grant bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant has actively participated in the incident and inflicted serious injuries upon the injured persons. It is contended that, as per the MLC report of the injured Suresh Kumar Sahu, the applicant caused injuries on his jaw and near the nose with a sickle, resulting in nasal injury as well as fracture of the jaw and due to the severity of the assault, Suresh Sahu became unconscious at the spot itself. It is further submitted that injured Kamal Singh Sahu also sustained injuries at the hands by the applicant, who assaulted him near his eye with a sickle. When Suresh Sahu intervened to rescue Kamal Singh Sahu, the applicant also attacked him with the same weapon. Learned State counsel, however, submits that as per the MLC report, the injuries sustained by Kamal Singh Sahu are simple in nature (non-grievous). In view of the nature and gravity of the injuries caused, it is prayed that the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that there are cross-case from both sides, coupled with the 5 MLC reports indicating that the injuries sustained by Suresh Sahu are grievous in nature whereas the injuries sustained by Kamal Singh Sahu and another namely Khilawan, are simple in nature and further that the incident appears to have arisen out of previous enmity between the parties and also considering the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant as the same has been explained in para 4(A) of the bail application, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Kamlesh Sahu, involved in Crime No. 145/2025, registered at Police Station : Arjunda, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 296, 115(2), 351(3), 109 of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under 6 Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal